Fixing America In 500 Words Or Less

Chapter 73


       A leading 21st Century scientist publicly stated, “science is what is true”. But, is this a fair and honest assessment when weighed in the balances of the known evidence?

       Six hundred years ago, scientists believed our sun circles the earth.  Even after Copernicus died, many insisted he was wrong.  When examined with any fairness, what is called “science” has a historical track record of constant revision regarding even the most fundamental of concepts.

       According to historian Will Durant, medical research was set back decades because scientists refused to accept evidence for blood circulation.  Not that long ago, many scientists believed disease spontaneously arises.  Two decades into the 20th Century, the majority believed in an eternal static universe containing one galaxy.

       Due to modern DNA and other emerging evidence, significant revisions are taking place in virtually every scientific field.  While educators expound on the “universal laws of physics”, some scientists openly question if there are any such laws.  Meanwhile, emerging evidence suggests universal highly advanced mathematical design.

       Many astrobiologists today believe life existed before our own solar system.  Modern theory goes something like this:  What causes life emerged from the big bang, is refined in stars and seeded from supernovas and other cosmic events, ending up in accretion disks surrounding newly formed stars.

       Then, as conditions allow, life probably arises on innumerable planets, most likely in many exotic forms unknown to us.  Whether arising from a singular point on earth, long assumed by Darwinian evolution or, life arose multiple times from many or even “zillions” of original forms, remains entirely unknown.

       Some geneticists openly challenge standard evolutionary models.  While it is indisputable life adapts and changes, exactly how and why such changes occur is hotly debated.  How to define “species” remains undetermined; the term itself being a human construct, part of an invented system artificially classifying life that has been revised significantly over time.

       According to the Encyclopedia Britannica article “Evolution”, science doesn't know how, when, where, why or in what form life arose on earth.  The article “Virus” concludes, in regards to viruses alone, science knows almost nothing compared to what there is yet to learn.

       And, though what science defines as “species” arise and die out, life itself marches on, in spite of catastrophic events on earth and far greater cataclysmic occurrences within the larger universe.  For all we know, life existed prior to the universe we inhabit and, may continue to exist forever and ever, long after our current universe passes away.

       Many today embrace the worst imaginable science fiction, claiming without a shred of supporting evidence that the universe arose from random, blind, unguided processes, as if a microbe in a petri dish could honestly say no one created the dish, there's no scientist observing it's actions, no laboratory, earth, solar system, etc., as if the universe we and the microbe inhabit somehow magically appeared.

       Does science really know what is true?  Or are certain 21st Century scientists just randomly pulling our DNA chain?  You decide.



INTRODUCTION (to complete book): Space and the Lowly Cell

There is no intention within the following chapters to dispute the irrefutable fact that life is constantly adapting and changing.  However, given modern-day knowledge of the size and scope of the universe and the modern-day fact that many actual practicing scientists believe life probably existed prior to our own sun and solar system, it is a great error to assume science knows when, where, how or why life came into existence either on earth or within the larger cosmic reality.

Those who assume modern-day evolutionary theory explains the origins of life haven't really been paying attention and, best seller list profiteers who continue to prance around pretending that evolution satisfactorily explains either their own existence or the existence of the larger universal reality, are clearly promoting baseless science fiction.  No part of evolutionary theory has ever satisfactorily explained origins.  And to be fair to Charles Darwin, apparently he never claimed that it did.

Here in the 21st Century, we've learned what Charles Darwin never knew, that what is called “outer” space is not permanent, static and rigid as was believed in the 19th Century.  Rather, today we know that not only life adapts and changes, but also so do planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, super clusters and apparently even the universe itself.  And also unknown to Darwin, space is expanding and appears to have a beginning.

Because of advanced telescope and related technology, we now have a larger window into the great infinity cosmic wonder of it all.  But, we also have a much better understanding today of the microscopic world of “inner” space and a strange and bizarre “quantum” reality unknown to Darwin.  Cells were first discovered in 1665 but the world of genetics and cell biology didn't really come into its own until the 20th Century.

And herein lies a problem entirely unknown to Darwin.  This perplexing puzzle is the overwhelming complexity of living cells and, the proteins, DNA and other astonishing things found within them.  Unknown perhaps to the typical student or lay person, this tiny little thing called a “cell” has pretty-much derailed any hope of evolution by natural selection ever explaining its existence.

Even the most avowed evolutionists today who are honest, admit that Darwin's theory cannot rationally explain the incredible complexity of cells and various parts within them.  And thus, this tiny thing called a “cell” is stubbornly refuting any and every theory of how life came into existence.  Some educators just don't want to discuss how life came to be and move on, but this is hardly fair to either their students or the rest of us who subsidize their salaries.

Cells take up very little space.  In fact about a trillion of them can fit on the head of a pin.  Our bodies contain over 35 trillion of them, even though at conception we start out as only one single cell.  Cells are not the same but, each one has it's own special function that make up our bodies as a whole.  And to make matters even more complicated, there are seemingly innumerable individual parts and pieces of parts within each living cell.

One of the many scientific conundrums that cells pose is that, without the DNA and RNA within them, proteins could not exist and conversely, without the proteins within cells, DNA and RNA could not exist.  If a single cell was blown up to the size of an Amazon warehouse, on the outside it might appear like a gigantic space ship with port holes, while inside one would find a beyond incredible complex machine factory far beyond the capabilities of the human mind to even imagine, let alone conceive of and create.

According to New York Professor Robert Shapiro, an expert in DNA: "The coincidental formation probability of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium is 10 to the 1040 power against."  Human cells contain 200,000 different types of proteins.  Even more improbable, the proteins in a cell must all be left handed, which even the Britannica admits, utterly defies any rational concept of odds.  And, to give one some idea of how great the odds against random “self-design” of cell proteins is, the number of all of the particles and photons that make up the entire known universe is less than 10 to the 82nd power.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, a British professor of mathematics and astronomy: "The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it...  It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.  There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

What is discussed here only covers the probability of proteins randomly existing and, doesn't consider the far greater improbability of DNA and RNA having somehow "self-designed".  And, the far beyond astronomically overwhelming improbability of a living cell as a whole somehow evolving by chance is a number so great, it would take volumes of normal type just to write out the zeroes.  The lowly cell, sitting proudly in space between the very incredibly small and, the very incredibly large, has virtually single-handedly brought what some call “the religion of modern science” to its knees.

Although an evolutionist himself, astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle stated: "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.  This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been created."

As the the lowly cell, so we too are existing somewhere in space, caught between the particles and pieces of atoms and the great vastness we know the universe today to be.  Since the existence of the physical universe is universally agreed to by human science, atheists, agnostics and the rest of us are all compelled to answer the same fundamental question, which is where did it all come from?  We cannot duck or ignore this question and, remain within the bounds of science and reason.

The sheer size, grandeur and scope of the known universe should be more than enough to convince any thinking human being, that the cosmic grand design wonder could not have and obviously did not come about by random back and forth and sideways "totally blind" steps of natural selection chance.  Even if there was no such thing as a living cell, the only reasonable and rational conclusion is deliberate conception, design and creation.  This was “science”, the most likely conclusion based on the known evidence, at the time of Darwin and, it remains "science", the most likely conclusion today.

Leading American scientist and DNA expert Francis Collins states, "DNA alone demonstrates design and not random processes."  And as leading physicist Paul Davies states, the majority of modern physicists now agree the universe appears to be "precisely fine-tuned for the emergence of life."  Renowned British scientist and mathematician Roger Penrose tells us the odds against the universe being a result of blind natural processes are at least 10 to the 10,123rd against. This is a number so large, there is nothing remotely within human experience to compare it to.

And of course, this is exactly what one would expect if the universe is deliberately designed and created and, not at all what would rationally exist by “totally blind” processes.  Geochemist Jeffrey Bada: ". . .We still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the 20th Century: How did life originate on Earth?"

The Encyclopedia Britannica article “Evolution” freely admits science doesn't know how life began on earth.  And, so does astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the television series “Cosmos”.  Unfortunately, he directly contradicts himself in another segment of the same series, claiming that life came about by natural blind "totally by chance" processes.  Obviously if science doesn't know how life came to be, then obviously science doesn't know what Mr. Tyson claims.  And not surprisingly, he doesn't provide any evidence but just moves on, as if evidence is no longer important for such a baseless grandiose blind faith belief.

This same non-evidence based idea randomly appears in various forms in many university biology textbooks; textbooks that never ask the hard questions: How can energy arise from no energy?  How can motion arise from no motion?  Light from no light?  Intelligence from no intelligence?  Life from no life?  Can mathematics magically exist unto itself or, can any of these or anything else magically exist unto itself?  It seems the more science discovers, the harder and harder it becomes to be an atheist.

Some astronomers, physicists and others are now claiming the universe is mathematically designed.  And today, scientists know that many animals, insects and even fish can do math—some even geometry; some birds even understand the concept of zero.  This clearly demonstrates that math is not a human invention as formerly assumed, as most of these creatures that do math on a regular basis existed long before we humans arrived.  So, if the universe is not designed, where did math come from?  And, how is it that pi and the golden ratio seem to be so predominantly displayed in nature?

Again according to the late Sir Fred Hoyle: "Creation “is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident.”  Rather than real science and education, the rejection of God's existence seems to be the main goal of many modern crackpots.  They go right on defending the mathematically impossible, rather than accepting the overwhelming obvious.  What humans call “science” has long been the most likely conclusion based on the known evidence.  Then Darwin published a book and from there, so-called 'science' has become less and less like science supposedly is.

Some careful reader might point out that this diatribe seems to have little to do with space.  But what this introduction is really about is the space between 21st Century ears; ears that continue to hearken to one of the greatest lies in human history, rather than accept the astronomically overwhelming evidence for Eternal Master Grand Designer.

As the world prepares for a great world war and, our planet becomes less and less inhabitable, perhaps we should re-consider that God and science just perhaps might belong in the same public school classroom.  Rather than the absurd notion that God is not a question for science; as if we know more than our Creator about how creation functions.  At least our Creator gives us life, rather than nuclear weapons, which can destroy us all many times over.  What manner of self-contradicting creature uses its 'science' to accomplish this?

These chapters below represent just a small sampling of the many seemingly strange, difficult to believe and often mind-boggling things that scientists have discovered in just the past few decades.  Information available to the general public online and elsewhere clearly demonstrates that rather than being in general agreement, there is a great diversity and wide range of opinion regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection and virtually everything else within the modern scientific community, often at the most fundamental of levels.

Because science continues to move at an ever more rapid pace, much of what is contained in these chapters is already in need of revision and, this will likely continue to be the case as new evidence continues to emerge.  While there are a wide variety of sources linked within the body of this work, the two primary sources used are the Encyclopedia Britannica and Science Daily.  The Britannica is highly recommended as the most reliable general source for human knowledge, while Science Daily offers a large database of recent science research from all over the world, containing information often largely absent from modern textbooks and earlier scientific works.

Neither the Encyclopedia Britannica or Science Daily are insinuated to be sources without error and, there is likely nothing of any length anywhere on earth that doesn't contain human bias and error.  Neither is the information contained within this work likely to be without several errors.  Care has been extended to revise and minimize mistakes as much as feasible, while there are many links contained within the following chapters serving to underscore the various claims and information contained within them.

Due to the complexity of modern science theory, similar and sometimes the same information is repeated in more than one of the following chapters, in order to hopefully maintain some context and clarity within the focus of each individual chapter.  Regardless of what any of us believe or fail to believe, we should never be afraid where the evidence leads, for as a very wise voice from the past implies, if we do not know or otherwise are afraid of what is really true, we have no hope of being free.

Excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica; article "Anthropic Principle":  "Clearly, humanity’s very existence shows that the current structure of the universe and the values taken by the constants of nature permit life to exist.  Indeed, it appears that many features of the universe that are necessary for the evolution and persistence of life are the results of unusual coincidences between different values of the constants of nature—quantities such as the mass of the electron, the strength of gravity, or the lifetime of the neutron.  The significance, if any, of these coincidences is not understood.  What is understood is that, if these quantities were slightly altered, then no form of complexity or life could exist in the universe."

The obvious fair question is, why would an educated human being choose to refer to this universal reality as "unusual coincidences", rather than the far more obvious, "evidence for Universal Grand Design"?

Unknown to Darwin: The Complexity of the Cell

Directly Contradicts Darwin: DNA Mutations Are Not Random

      For further discussion and extensive detailed notes with links to many diverse scientific, intellectual and other sources, please see the complete free online book at this link:

Does Science Really Know What is True?

Click Here to Go Back to Contents

Click Here to eMail the Author

Copyright © December 10th, 2019 by Richard Aberdeen.
Copyright © December 10th, 2019 by Freedom Tracks Records.
( including from several earlier copyrights )

No part of this material may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including printing, photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher and signed by the author. For inquiries, please contact Freedom Tracks Records.  The essays entitled Revolution and Revolution ~ Side B are open copyright and may be reproduced and distributed as desired.